Customer Reviews

The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

There are four aspects to the theoretical underpinning of this book, (i) philosophical, (ii) theoretically physical, (iii) experimentally physical and (iv) mathematical. The theoretical underpinning for this book are the six theory sections, which are also posted by the author on several of his web pages. My review is directed at these theoretical underpinnings. For the purpose of orientation, one may note that these six sections come as pdf files. Consequently, it is natural to label their pages in consecutive order. For example, the references would be on page 33. The ensuing seven remarks are labelled according to which of the above four aspects I am talking about.

1.(iv) The expressions for the charge distribution given below Eq.(I.5), as well as those given by Eqs.(I.7) and (I.8) do not satisfy the author's wave equation, Eq.(I.6).

2.(iii) By an appropriate rotation of the laboratory, any linear combination of the angular eigenmodes having the same l-value will become independent of the azimuthal angle \phi, i.e. will become a pure m=0 mode having the same l-value. (This is a consequence of the familiar "addition theorem" for spherical harmonics.) According to the Mills theory, the oscillation frequency of the system will therefore have changed from a non-zero value to the value zero. Putting these two observations together, one has the result that, by merely changing the orientation with which one looks at the charge distribution, say, by tilting one's head, one can change the frequency with which the system vibrates.

3.(iii) The radial amplitude profiles given by Eqs.(I.25) and (I.26) are those of a hollow resonating sphere or those of empty spherically symmetric space. These profiles are not those that pertain to a system having a central charged nucleus, whose electrostatic potential U(r) is proportional to 1/r. As a consequence, vibrational frequencies (or energy levels) based on these (non-electrostatic) profiles are in conflict with the known levels of the hydrogen atom, the book's "alternative interpretation" on pages 11-13 notwithstanding.

4.(ii) The sweeping negative assessments (after Eq.(I.46) down to the middle of the next page) of (1) quantum mechanics (q.m.), of (2) the relation between Schrodinger's equation and spin and the Pauli principle, and of (3) the impuned "assumption" of q.m. visavis macroscopic objects are very strange by any standard. I am sure that had this book been cognizant of, for example, Feynman's (LECTURES ON PHYSICS, Volume III) exposition of quantum mechanics (but not necessarily ALL his philosophical comments), augmented by Wheeler's (Box 25.3 in "GRAVITATION" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler) exposition of the role of Hamilton-Jacobi theory in relating q.m. to Newtonian mechanics, then the book would have reached a diametrically opposite assessment.

5.(iii) The book claims that the hydrogen atom has energy levels below those already measured spectroscopically. It is claimed (e.g. on page 21) that these levels betray their existence only through atomic collisions. If that were indeed the case, then the atomic beam physicists would have seen these energy states a long time ago with the help of the Ramsauer effect. This effect is observed when electron having the right energy exhibit resonance scattering (only for the l=0 part of the electrons' angular momentum) when they scatter off a neutral atomic beam. Furthermore, these electrons would also reveal any "hydrino" states by the energy necessary to ionize the hydrogen atoms in these states.

6.(i) Above Eq.(I.22) the book makes the physically and philosphically incorrect claim that Schrodinger's boundary condition leads to a "purely" mathematical model of the electron [emphasis via quotes are mine]. The correct statement should have been something like: "Schrodinger's boundary condition expresses (or captures) the dynamical behaviour of a bound electron". Thus, first of all, Schrodinger's boundary condition makes no statement about the structure of the electron. Secondly, and more importantly, there is no breach (as introduced by Plato and formalized by Kant) between reason and reality as is implied by the dismissive and subjective descriptor `purely mathematical model'. The phrase `purely mathematical model' or its philosophic equivalent, `purely mental construct', is an attempt to drive a wedge between theoretical physics and that which is observed or perceived in experimental physics. Such attempts should, for obvious reasons, be guarded against with vigilance. A very informative discussion of this issue can be found in L. Peikoff's article "The analytic synthetic dichotomy" in A. Rand's "Introduction to objectivist epistemology".

7.(i) In several places the book refers to the "interpretation" of the wave function, or the "interpretation" of quantum mechanics. This is bad physics and bad epistemology. Here again some philosophic detection is necessary. The underlying premise is the erroneous assumption that these concepts, or constellation of concepts, are a matter of revelation, and that our job is merely to "interpret" what they mean. The underlying premise consists of the assumption that (a) the concept `wave function' or (b) the constellation of concepts `quantum mechanics', both products of man's consciousness, are

metaphysically prior or independent of existence. In fact, the opposite is the case. All products of our consciousness, including the above, are constructed by a mental process in which our consciousness digests the data and observations obtained through our senses. The fundamental aspects of this digestive process are in fact described in the above book by A. Rand

Let me summarize this review by putting it into a wider perspective. As one can see from the issues I have pointed out, the work presented in this book is grossly deficient from (i) the philosophical, (ii) the theoretically physical, (iii) the experimentally physical and (iv) the mathematical point of view. The book presents a terribly misleading and confused picture about all these issues. I could cite additional instances, but I merely would be beating a dead horse.

Based on the observations listed above, a more accurate assessment of the book is that it is an example of what, for good reasons, would give mathematicians, engineers, physicists, and philosophers a bad reputation in the eyes of prospective scientists or the public in general.

The profound philosophical challenges offered by Mills against the duality model of the electron should not be taken lightly. The "one-star" rating by a reader from the Dept of Mathematics, Ohio State University (OSU), Columbus, OH reflects a typical response of scientists to Mills' radical views. Here are some answers to the points made by the OSU reader:

OSU: "(iv) The expressions for the charge distribution given below Eq. (I.5), as well as those given by Eqs. (I.7) and (I.8) do not satisfy the author's wave equation, Eq. (I.6)."

RESPONSE: They are solutions as proven on pages 61-64 of the book.

OSU: "(iii) By an appropriate rotation of the laboratory, any linear combination of the angular eigenmodes having the same l-value will become independent of the azimuthal angle \phi, i.e. will become a pure m=0 mode having the same l-value. According to the Mills theory, the oscillation frequency of the system will therefore have changed from a non-zero value to the value zero. Putting these two observations together, one has the result that, by merely changing the orientation with which one looks at the charge distribution, say, by tilting one's head, one can change the frequency with which the system vibrates."

RESPONSE: The system does not vibrate. Perhaps he is referring to the angular velocity which is independent of l; thus, all m sub l states are degenerate except with the presence of a magnetic field.

OSU: "(iii) The radial amplitude profiles given by Eqs. (I.25) and (I.26) are those of a hollow resonating sphere or those of empty spherically symmetric space. These profiles are not those that pertain to a system having a central charged nucleus, whose electrostatic potential U(r) is proportional to 1/r. As a consequence, vibrational frequencies (or energy levels) based on these (non-electrostatic) profiles are in conflict with the known levels of the hydrogen atom--the author's 'alternative interpretation' on pages 11-13 notwithstanding."

RESPONSE: This is a dynamic not static spherical resonator. The closed form solutions of Maxwell's equations are given on pages 81-107 of the book.

OSU: "(ii) The sweeping negative assessments (after Eq. (I.46) down to the middle of the next page) of (1) quantum mechanics (q.m.), of (2) the relation between Schrodinger's equation and spin and the Pauli principle, and of (3) the impuned "assumption" of q.m. vis a vis macroscopic objects are very strange by any standard. I am sure that if the author had read and followed, for example, Feynman's (Volume III) exposition of quantum mechanics (but not necessarily ALL his philosophical comments), augmented by Wheeler's (Box 25.3 in 'GRAVITATION' by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler) exposition of the role of Hamilton-Jacobi theory in relating q.m. to Newtonian mechanics, then the author would have been led to a diametrically opposite assessment. (iii) The author claims that the hydrogen atom has energy levels below those already measured spectroscopically. He claims (e.g. on page 21) that these levels betray their existence only through atomic collisions. If that were indeed the case, then the atomic beam physicists would have seen these energy states a long time ago with the help of the Ramsauer effect. This effect is observed when electron having the right energy exhibit resonance scattering (only for the l=0 part of the electrons' angular momentum) when they scatter off a neutral atomic beam. Furthermore, these electrons would also reveal any 'hydrino' states by the energy necessary to ionize the hydrogen atoms in these states."

RESPONSE: This may have been observed but not explained. From Chapter 38: "The detection of the transition of atomic hydrogen from the traditional 'ground' state (n=1) to the fractional quantum energy level (n=1/2) below the traditional 'ground' state (hydrinos) is further reported by the assignment of the anomalous 31 eV backward peak observed by Rudd, et al. [4] in the electron spectrum from collisions of 70 keV protons with hydrogen atoms. The transition occurs by a 'resonant collision' mechanism predicted by Mills [3, 5]. Protons effect this transition of hydrogen by a resonant inelastic collision reaction. In this case, a backward 40.8 eV electron is produced which undergoes Franck-Hertz scattering [6] to give rise predominantly to a 30.6 eV backward peak, a 27.2 eV backward peak, and a 20.4 eV backward peak. Discontinuities in the back scattering spectrum at these energies were observed by Rudd, et al. [4] in the electron spectrum from collisions of 70 keV protons with hydrogen atoms. The maximum intensity of back scattering is predicted to be 165° falling to zero at 90° which is in agreement with the observed maximum at 160° which decreases with smaller angles to the absence of the backward scattering at 90°."

CONCLUSION: As the reader can see, these issues are not so simple as even well-educated scientists might suggest. What is needed is a blue-ribbon panel of scientists with a *serious* interest in understanding and *testing* Mills' theories. As it is, sadly, most scientists continue to assume they know everything there is to know about the hydrogen atom, even though Mills has produced evidence suggesting otherwise.

Mills makes some elementary algebraic and computational mistakes in the first chapter, chooses an unphysical "boundary condition," and it's all downhill from there.

He also manages to derive anti-gravity from his theory. Since an anti-gravity shield is identically the same as a perpetual motion machine, it's clear he has made some errors.

The book is tough reading, dense, and frequently damnably obtuse. The last chapters read as if they were extracted from patent applications.

The significance of this scientific landmark cannot be understated. The work is based on one new, yet fundamental insight--when Schrodinger developed the wave equation for the electron he made a broad assumption for the fourth boundary condition required to solve the problem. Randell Mills replaced this broad assumption with an exact boundary condition derived from Maxwell's Equations. As a result, the Mills solution is far more exact than the traditional quantum model. This new model enabled Mills to develop profound insights into the fundamental structure of matter, and ultimately enabled him to apply Einstein's field equations to the structure of the electron and derive its gravitational mass. In ten to twenty years, historians will look back at the 1990's as yet another example of how the established physics community was unable to recognize a brilliant, discontinuous innovation in understanding nature.

The mathematics and arguments in this book will be difficultfor many to follow. Scientists have called this theory into questionfrom its inception on mathematical as well as experimental grounds.

This hodgepodge of pseudoscience would be laughable, were it not for the fact that the author is attempting to extract investment money from the gullible.

It is sadly rare in the annals of science that a book like this comes along. Mills has a gift and intuition for leading us along a chain of plausible and cleverly-woven reasoning, introducing a minor concept at odds with "accepted" logic, then diverging exponentially to a completely orthogonal or inverted point of view. This charming book presents a world - in some ways remarkably close to our own - in which the laws of nature are dramatically different. Mills' genius lies in showing us how easy it would be, by making a few algebraicerrors and accidentally misinterpreting subtle or obscure aspects of theory, to draw conclusions about physics which are so incorrect as to be almost crank. His keen humor allows the reader to glimpse a hint of the underlying fallacy through mists of cumulostratic equations - and then with a whisk reverses the relative position of assumption and deduction in an argument without detracting from either. The result is a masterpiece at once thought-provoking and side-splittingly funny.

Mills - actually a respected MD - does a great service to the scientific establishment by demonstrating the value of thorough peer review and technical integrity, so important in these times of "cold fusion" debacles. The Quixotic tilting at quantum mechanics is also inspired, as (along with relativity) this field requires careful study to understand, and as a result it does attract a surfeit of fervent disbelievers, predisposed to accept any alternative theory which better accords with the lay judgment of the armchair engineer. As a final stroke, Mills has been sporting enough to use his friends and confidants to write "reviews" of early editions of his works, cleverly creating a cult mystique which is itself a neat spoof of the way scientific conspiracy theory starts.

This book hints at similar irreverent fantasia in the pipeline, mocking quack genome research and "advanced" concepts in space travel. We ask... please Dr Mills, more medicine for us soon?

BUY THIS BOOK! Who wouldn't want to own the equivalent of an early edition of "THE PRINCIPIA".

If you think that's a little effusive and you need to be further convinced to buy this book then just surf on over to space.com and search for "hydrino". The three articles published on 23 MAY 2000 will show you why you'll want to have this book in your library.

This is a very SERIOUS book. Based on my experience you'll need some help in getting the most out of it. I suggest you join the HYDRINO STUDY GROUP (HSG) set up by NASA scientist LUKE SETZER. This newsgroup maintains a very high level of discourse and is quite informative. It really helps clarify what Dr Mills is trying to communicate. Both skeptics and believers are welcome and it is not unusual for Dr Mills himself to answer a particularly thorny question. Just surf to egroups.com and search on "hydrino".

In case you're worried by the 1 star review and comments from Mistakes Were Made (below) please don't let that deter you from buying this book. His concerns are specifically addressed in the archives of the HSG.

I've been watching BlackLight Power for about 5 years now and it is only as a result of recent developments that I've become fully convinced. So do yourself a favor and invest the effort check it out and then BUY THE BOOK!

Greg

A Petroleum Engineer by training, I could not say more than the several positive reviews by experts in the field listed here. None-the-less, this subject is approachable on all levels, for it is as Mills states, physical principles at work, not mathematical ones. On some level we all identify with physical principles. However, as a matter of concern, the 'inconsistency' here is the means by which this company is being pawned to the mediocre elitists, rather than a hungry public deserving more than the same old paltry standards since the mid 1500s.

Having mostly retired military on the board of directors, including current CFR member, Merril A. McPeak, I am obligated to say that the reason for the reaction bordering on the edge of complete dismissal, forcing new roots into the earth that are, equally, being ignored by the public, is of direct connection to fascist designs going back in time to Pope Pius VII and his installation of the Jesuit Order in the church, or Saint Ignatius of Loyola, in 1534. I would rather add that as a member of a true scientific fellowship, Mills deserves to sit alongside not only Newton (who was at home decapitating tax evaders) and/or Edison (not Tessla's biggest supporter), or Einstein, but Francisco J. Varela's work including, Principles of Biological Autonomy (1979), or Gregory Bateson's, Mind and Nature a Necessary Unity (1979), or James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis and others. Humanists also, like Saul Bellow, Norbert Weiner, William Irwin Thompson, Leslie A. Fiedler...

Instead, I am advised to refer readers to Eric Jon Phelps and see how this board is devilishly connected to preventing this research from becoming publicly sanctioned and Mills may not ever see any of his truer ambitions turn to fruit, if patterns repeat themselves.

Readers of Dr. Mills' book are the first people to learn that the blossom times of quantum alchemy and Big Bang fiction have reached their zenith. Dr. Mills' theory is the most comprehensive one ever presented. It is convincing, because it is exclusively based on fundamental physical laws and constants, and because it is consistent over all of its aspects and fully in agreement with experimental findings. It avoids nonsensical infinities and mystic assumptions and postulates and thus brings beauty and harmony back to our picture of the cosmos. In the areas of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology the ignition of a new "Big Bang" has taken place, but it expands with human velocity. The history of physics shows that it usually takes a billion of seconds (30 years) to replace an old theory by a new one. Can the internet help to reduce the decay time of ignorance, negative criticism, and detraction? - GET A START, READ THIS BOOK!

Dr. Günther Landvogt